Don't give the rich even more influence

Story highlights

It's been five years since the government bailed out banks during the economic crisis

Ben Cohen, Betty Ahrens: Today, Wall Street is still the biggest player in Washington

In upcoming McCutcheon v. FEC, Supreme Court may give the rich even more power

Cohen, Ahrens: We need democracy that represents the people, not super rich donors

Five years ago, on October 3, 2008, with the economy in a tailspin, President George W. Bush signed the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program into law, giving the government the ability to bail out the big banks to prevent further calamity.

A number of factors caused the economic collapse, but one in particular stands out -- a witch's brew of money and politics.

As the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission wrote in its 2011 report, "It did not surprise the Commission that an industry of such wealth and power would exert pressure on policy makers and regulators. From 1999 to 2008, the financial sector expended $2.7 billion in reported federal lobbying expenses; individuals and political action committees in the sector made more than $1 billion in campaign contributions."

Five years later, with millions of Americans still unemployed or underemployed, not much has changed.

The Dodd-Frank financial reform was an important legislation and it has, and will continue, to protect consumers from abuses of the banks. But the industry played a major role in what rules were passed and it continues to play a role in the implementation of regulation rules.

Soon, the Supreme Court may give bankers and wealthy special interests -- the same guys and gals who wrecked the economy in 2008 -- even more influence.

Just Watched

Barofsky: Bank bailout sold out Main St.

On October 8, the court will hear oral arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC, a case brought by Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee that threatens to remove the aggregate limits that individual donors can give, in total, to federal candidates and committees each election cycle.

Some 28% of the roughly 1,200 individuals who got within 10% of the aggregate limit in the 2012 election work on Wall Street. These super donors work at Goldman Sachs, Elliott Management and other top financial firms. Wall Street was the biggest industry to put money into politics.

If aggregate limits are thrown out, a future presidential candidate could be allowed to ask for a $2 million donation for his campaign and various committees. Congressional leaders could set up a fundraising committee that could take in $3.5 million from one donor. That's a sweet deal for Wall Street, but it's a raw deal for democracy.

Based on past precedent, the court should uphold the current limits. But whether the justices do or do not, our democracy is already in trouble. Congress must act to raise the voices of We the People.

The Stampede encourages people to legally stamp messages such as "not to be used for bribing politicians" on our nation's currency to support reforms to #GetMoneyOut of politics. Every bill is seen an average of 875 times and helps demonstrate a growing, sustained demand for reform.

One solution is modeled on successful systems in Arizona, Connecticut and Maine, which allow candidates to run competitive campaigns for office by relying on a mix of small donations and limited public funds. There are a handful of similar measures already introduced in Congress. They would empower small dollar donors and help them compete with the lobbyists, bankers and wealthy donors writing big checks.

The American people want and deserve a representative democracy that represents the people, not super-rich donors. But unless we come together and demand change, Congress will continue to be owned (or at least rented) by big money.